The Texas Department of Criminal
Justice (TDCJ) manages offenders in state prisons, state jails and private
correctional facilities that contract with TDCJ. These are the correspondence and
administrative files of the General Counsel's Office during the periods that TDCJ
was involved in litigation. The files document lawsuits filed against TDCJ (formerly
known as the Texas Department of Corrections, TDC) or its employees by inmates in
the Texas prison system, in addition to lawsuits filed by TDCJ and the state of
Texas against third parties. Major cases against TDCJ include Lamar v. Coffield and Guajardo v. Estelle.
Lawsuits filed by TDCJ include the case against VitaPro Foods Inc., and the case
against Eroy Edward Brown. A separate finding aid exists for the Ruiz litigation
case files, which document a 1974 class action suit filed by David Ruiz and others
against TDC and director W.J. Estelle. Records present include administrative and
legal correspondence; memoranda; internal reports; administrative records; court
filings and other documents; administrative directives, board policy documents,
transcripts of depositions; VitaPro recipes; copies of news articles and
newsletters; press releases; handwritten notes; questionnaires and compilations of
answers; administrative remedy forms completed by inmates; inmate disciplinary and
incident reports; literature regarding VitaPro; bid documents; blueprints; and
marketing strategies. Also present in the VitaPro case files are seven VHS cassette
tapes and six audio cassette tapes. Dates covered are 1975-2001, 2012, undated, bulk
1980-1986, 1994-1996.

Quantity:

28.5 cubic ft.

Language:

These materials are written predominately in English with scattered Spanish throughout. A small number of materials in French are present in the VitaPro litigation case
files.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and the Board of Criminal Justice
were created in 1989 (House Bill 2335, 71st Texas Legislature, Regular Session). The
Department manages offenders in state prisons, state jails and contracted private
correctional facilities. It also provides funding and certain oversight of community
supervision and is responsible for the supervision of offenders released from prison
on parole or mandatory supervision. The nine-member Board of Criminal Justice is
appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate to six-year
overlapping terms and is charged with overseeing the Department of Criminal
Justice.

The origins of TDCJ can be traced back to 1848 when "An Act to Establish a State
Penitentiary" was passed by the Second Texas Legislature. Under the new act, the
prison system began as a single institution located in Huntsville, known as the
Huntsville Penitentiary, as opposed to previous convention when local jails housed
convicted felons. In 1871, the legislature directed that the penitentiary be leased
to private individuals (Chapter 21, 12th Legislature, 1st Called Session). These
men, known as lessees, paid the state for the convict labor and use of facilities,
and in turn, managed the system, including clothing and feeding the convicts and
paying the guards. It was during this period that the outside camp system was firmly
established as part of the prison system. In addition to the use of convicts in and
around the prison, the convicts were hired out to large labor employers, mainly
plantation owners and railroad companies. A second prison facility, Rusk
Penitentiary, was built between 1877 and 1882. It began receiving convicts in
January of 1883.

The original act of 1848 also established a governing body of the penitentiary as a
three-member Board of Directors, appointed by the governor, with the approval of the
senate. The board was responsible for creating and distributing a set of rules and
bylaws for the administration of the penitentiary, overseeing the treatment of
convicts, preparing an annual inventory of property, and making an annual report to
the governor. In 1881, the legislature reorganized the prison system, abolishing the
Board of Directors, and creating in its place a Penitentiary Board, consisting of
the governor, the state treasurer, and the prison superintendent (Chapter 49, 17th
Legislature, Regular Session). In April 1883, the administrative system was again
reorganized, with the board comprised of the governor and two commissioners
appointed by the governor (Chapter 114, 18th Legislature, Regular Session). In 1885,
the board composition changed once more, now consisting of three commissioners
appointed by the governor (House Bill 562, 19th Legislature, Regular Session). This
board was succeeded by the Board of Prison Commissioners in 1910, which was composed
of three commissioners appointed by the governor (Senate Bill 10, 31st Legislature,
4th Called Session).

The legislation that created the new board also directed the prison system to begin
operating again on state account, i.e. lessees no longer managed the prison system,
effective in January 1911. Convicts, or inmates, were housed and worked in one of
the two prisons or on one of several state prison farms. The shop industries slowed
down while the prison farms expanded. This arrangement made it more difficult to
provide education and other reform measures. Such measures were generally practiced
at Huntsville, with some teaching extended to a couple of prison farms by the early
1900s.

The Texas Prison Board replaced the Board of Prison Commissioners as the governing
body for the Texas Prison System in 1927, increasing in size to nine members (House
Bill 59, 40th Legislature, Regular Session). The members of the board were appointed
by the governor, with senate approval, to six-year overlapping terms. The board
formulated the policies and the manager carried them out. During the board's tenure,
1927-1957, it made changes in the system including an added emphasis on prison
reform, teaching, recreation (including the establishment of the Texas Prison
Rodeo), and a new method of classifying inmates.

The Texas Prison System became the Department of Corrections in 1957 (Senate Bill 42,
55th Legislature, Regular Session). This department was governed by the Board of
Corrections, composed of nine members appointed by the governor with the advice and
consent of the senate to six-year overlapping terms. In 1989, the department became
the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. In September 2003,
the Correctional Institutions Division (CID) was created through a merger of the
Institutional Division, Operations Division, Private Facilities Division, and the
State Jail Division. The CID is responsible for the confinement of adult felony and
state jail felony offenders who are sentenced to incarceration in a secure facility.
The CID is divided into three areas: Prison and Jail Operations, Management
Operations, and Support Operations. It encompasses 95 state-operated prisons and
jails, which include 50 state prison facilities, four pre-release facilities, three
psychiatric facilities, one intellectual disabilities facility, two medical
facilities, 14 transfer facilities, 15 state jail facilities, one geriatric
facility, and five substance abuse felony punishment facilities. The CID is also
responsible for support operations such as Classification and Records, Fusion
Center, Correctional Training and Staff Development (CTSD), Counsel Substitute,
Laundry, Food, and Supply, Mail Systems Coordinators Panel, Offender Transportation,
Office for Disciplinary Coordination, Plans and Operations, Safe Prisons Program
Management Office, and Security Threat Group Management Office. Effective June 15,
2007, the Private Facilities Division was separated from the CID to commence as its
own division, Private Facility Contract Monitoring/Oversight Division. As of August
31, 2012, there were 152, 303 offenders housed in TDCJ units.

The other divisions of the Department of Criminal Justice are the Parole Division
(including the Board of Pardons and Paroles), the Community Justice Assistance
Division (former Adult Probation Commission), the Correctional Institutions
Division, the Executive Division, Internal Affairs, Programs and Services, Victims
Services, Office of the General Counsel, Financial Services, Health Services,
Internal Audit, and State Counsel for Offenders. Direct management of the prison
system is through an executive director, with each division headed by a director and
each individual prison unit managed by a warden.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) manages offenders in state prisons,
state jails and private correctional facilities that contract with TDCJ. These are
the correspondence and administrative files of the General Counsel's Office during
the periods that TDCJ was involved in litigation. The files document lawsuits filed
against TDCJ (formerly known as the Texas Department of Corrections, TDC) or its
employees by inmates in the Texas prison system, in addition to lawsuits filed by
TDCJ and the state of Texas against third parties. Major cases against TDCJ include
Lamar v. Coffield and Guajardo v. Estelle. Other cases include Encalade
v. Livingston; Sillings v. Bell; Freeman v. TDCJ; Gomez v. Waldron; Alberti v.
Sheriff of Harris County v. William P. Clements; and Coble v. Texas Department of Corrections. Lawsuits filed
by TDCJ include the case against VitaPro Foods Inc., a private Canadian company that
produces and markets a soy-based meat substitute under the trade name VitaPro, and
the case against Eroy Edward Brown, an African American inmate charged with the
murders of the warden of the Ellis prison unit as well as the prison farm manager.
Dates covered are 1975-2001, 2012, undated, bulk 1980-1986, 1994-1996.

Correspondents include staff members of TDCJ, General Counsel's Office, inmates and
their families, attorneys, state senators, and community organizations. Internal
memos are present between staff of the General Counsel's Office, the executive
director's office, and other sections of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice.

The described materials were reviewed to confirm (and in a few cases supply) folder
titles and dates. A few of the files include photocopies of original documents. The
quality of the photocopies and legibility of text varies.

Arrangement of the Records

The records arrived at the State Archives in no apparent order. Most of the files
within the boxes have been maintained as received from the agency and are generally
not in chronological order. In most instances, file names have been directly noted
from the originals. However in some cases, files were not originally assigned
descriptive names. On those occasions, the records were reviewed by an archivist and
a label was assigned based on implied intellectual grouping. Some minor
rearrangement was done by staff to correct obvious misfiles.

A small number of the files consisted of materials pertaining to the Ruiz litigation
case. Those files were removed and placed with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice General Counsel's
Office Ruiz litigation case files. The finding aid for this collection
can be viewed by clicking on the link. In addition, several inches of other
litigation case files were found mixed in with the Ruiz litigation case files. These
were removed and added to this collection.

Three litigation case files in particular are well documented in this collection.
These include the VitaPro, Lamar and Guajardo cases. Each of these cases consists of its own
series, while the less-documented cases have been compiled together into a series of
their own.

Restrictions on Access

Because of the possibility that portions of these records fall under Public
Information Act exceptions including, but not limited to: social security numbers
(V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.117 for government employees, 552.147 for
any living person); medical information (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.101
(information confidential by law, Texas Occupations Code, Section 159.002(b));
information about inmates created by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.134 (information confidential by law, Texas
Government Code, Section 508.313)); attorney-client privilege, agency memoranda or
attorney work product (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.107 or 111); and
account numbers, access device numbers (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.136);
an archivist must review these records before they can be accessed for research. The
records may be requested for research under the provisions of the Public Information
Act (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 552). The researcher may request an
interview with an archivist or submit a request by mail (Texas State Library and
Archives Commission, P. O. Box 12927, Austin, TX 78711), fax (512-463-5436), email
(Dir_Lib@tsl.texas.gov), or see our web page (http://www.tsl.texas.gov/agency/customer/pia.html). Include enough
description and detail about the information requested to enable the archivist to
accurately identify and locate the information. If our review reveals information
that may be excepted by the Public Information Act, we are obligated to seek an open
records decision from the Attorney General on whether the records can be released.
The Public Information Act allows the Archives ten working days after receiving a
request to make this determination. The Attorney General has 45 working days to
render a decision. Alternately, the Archives can inform you of the nature of the
potentially excepted information and if you agree, that information can be redacted
or removed and you can access the remainder of the records.

All of the litigation case files are restricted and must be reviewed by an archivist
before they can be accessed for research. Most of the possible exceptions are not
noted in the folder inventory because they apply to the majority of the folders;
only exceptions that are less obvious are so marked.

Materials do not circulate, but may be used in the State Archives search room.
Materials will be retrieved from and returned to storage areas by staff members.

Restrictions on Use

Most records created by Texas state agencies are not copyrighted. State records also
include materials received by, not created by, state agencies. Copyright remains
with the creator. The researcher is responsible for complying with U.S. Copyright
Law (Title 17 U.S.C.).

Technical Requirements

Please contact the Archives' Preservation Officer for appropriate hardware / software
to view contents of the VHS video cassette tapes or listen to the audio tapes.

These records were transferred to the Archives and Information Services Division
of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice on September 16, 2003; and March 6, 2007.

This series documents the progress of the class action suit, Allen L. Lamar et al. v. H.H. Coffield et al.,
filed by inmates of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (formerly known
as the Texas Department of Corrections, TDC) against the agency in 1972
alleging race discrimination and unfair segregation practices. A number of
pleadings were filed by Lamar, et al., each naming the director of the
prison as the first defendant, thus the style changes from Lamar v. Coffield (the director at the time of
the original suit) to, for instance, Lamar v.
Lynaugh, changing when the director of the prison system changed.
The records date 1975-1978, 1981-1992, bulk 1984-1986.

Materials found within these files include court filings, copies of incoming
and outgoing legal and administrative correspondence, drafts and final
versions of reports, internal policies and plans, including TDC's in-cell
integration plan and affirmative action plan, administrative directives,
overview of TDC and case-related history, practices and court requirements,
employment data, agency statistics, excerpts from the Supreme Court Reporter and Federal
Supplement, survey questions submitted to the Department of
Corrections in other U.S. states and a compilation of their responses,
materials drawing comparisons with similar legal cases in other states, oral
depositions, and handwritten notes. Bulk of the material consists of court
filings, including copies of the defendants' monthly reports, versions of
the TDC affirmative action plan, and housing reports incorporating the Ruiz
classification plan. Correspondents include the attorney general and
assistant attorney generals of Texas; executive directors, general counsel
and other staff members of TDC; staff members of the Department of
Corrections in other states; prison wardens; inmates; and the
court-appointed expert for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Lamar Case History

On October 17, 1972, two inmates of the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC)
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas alleging race discrimination and unfair segregation practices. On
November 6, 1972, eight Spanish-speaking inmates moved to intervene, and the
district court granted their request on January 6, 1973. The United States
attorney general certified the case to be of general public importance and
the United States' motion to intervene was granted on July 6, 1973.
Thereafter, eight other inmates' requests to intervene were granted.

The court certified the case as a class action, consisting of all past,
present, and future inmates of TDC. The plaintiffs alleged racial or ethnic
discrimination, particularly in assignment to various prison units, living
quarters, work squads; in disciplinary procedures; in selection for
educational programs; in providing medical care, protection from harm in the
prison units, recreational facilities, dining, showering, and other group
activities; and in the use of racial and ethnic slurs by the staff. The
United States, as intervenor, sought to enjoin TDC from assigning inmates to
cells based on race, color, religion, or national origin; from segregating
the prison facilities; from failing to implement a standard of prisoner
classification not related to race; and from failing to correct and erase
the effects of past discriminatory practices.

The parties entered into a consent decree, which the court approved on April
12, 1977. The decree stated that TDC should implement an affirmative action
plan, designed to prevent the use of ethnicity and race for inmate housing
assignments, job assignments, discipline, education, medical care, and
recreational activities. Additionally, TDC was to take measures to assure
that its staff did not use racial epithets and did not punish inmates for
speaking Spanish.

Over the years, a series of hearings were held about compliance and
modification. The court discontinued the state's duty to make routine
reports of in-cell integration. In 1996, inmates who did not wish to share
cells with inmates of another race sought to intervene in the case and
modify the decree. The United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas declined to allow these plaintiffs to intervene.

The records arrived at the State Archives in no apparent order. Most of the
files within the boxes have been maintained as received from the agency and
are not in chronological order. In most instances, file names have been
directly noted from the originals. However in some cases, files were not
originally assigned descriptive names. On those occasions, the records were
reviewed by an archivist and a label was assigned based on implied
intellectual grouping. Some minor rearrangement was done by staff to correct
obvious misfiles.

These records were transferred to the Archives and Information Services
Division of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission by the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice on September 16, 2003.

Restrictions on Access

Because of the possibility that portions of these records fall under Public
Information Act exceptions including, but not limited to: social security
numbers (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.117 for government
employees, 552.147 for any living person); information about inmates created
by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (V.T.C.A., Government Code,
Section 552.134 (information confidential by law, Texas Government Code,
Section 508.313)); attorney-client privilege, agency memoranda or attorney
work product (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.107 or 111); and
account numbers, access device numbers (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section
552.136); an archivist must review these records before they can be accessed
for research. The records may be requested for research under the provisions
of the Public Information Act (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 552). The
researcher may request an interview with an archivist or submit a request by
mail (Texas State Library and Archives Commission, P. O. Box 12927, Austin,
TX 78711), fax (512-463-5436), email (Dir_Lib@tsl.texas.gov), or see our web
page (http://www.tsl.texas.gov/agency/customer/pia.html). Include
enough description and detail about the information requested to enable the
archivist to accurately identify and locate the information. If our review
reveals information that may be excepted by the Public Information Act, we
are obligated to seek an open records decision from the Attorney General on
whether the records can be released. The Public Information Act allows the
Archives ten working days after receiving a request to make this
determination. The Attorney General has 45 working days to render a
decision. Alternately, the Archives can inform you of the nature of the
potentially excepted information and if you agree, that information can be
redacted or removed and you can access the remainder of the records.

All of the litigation case files are restricted and must be reviewed by an
archivist before they can be accessed for research. Most of the possible
exceptions are not noted in the folder inventory because they apply to the
majority of the folders; only exceptions that are less obvious are so
marked.

Materials do not circulate, but may be used in the State Archives search
room. Materials will be retrieved from and returned to storage areas by
staff members.

Restrictions on Use

Most records created by Texas state agencies are not copyrighted. State
records also include materials received by, not created by, state agencies.
Copyright remains with the creator. The researcher is responsible for
complying with U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S.C.).

Technical Requirements

None.

Processing information

Processed by Laura K. Saegert, September 2003, December 2008

Additional processing and finding aid by Aditi Worcester, January 2014

Box

2004/016-118

Lamar v. Lynaugh: Plan for in-cell
integration, rough draft, 1988

Lamar v. Coffield: Stipulation and
order regarding implementation of rational objective criteria for
assignment of inmate housing and jobs, 1987

Lamar v. McCotter: Defendants' brief
in support of motion to modify, 1985-1987

[Folder includes a copy of the report and objective
criteria submitted by Jerry Enomoto, expert for the U.S. Department
of Justice, in addition to copies of court filings, and
administrative and legal correspondence.]

Preliminary analysis of interracial incidents between two or more
TDC inmates which resulted in major punishments, 1989

Lamar affirmative action plan, 1975-1978, 1983-1986,
1991[3 folders]

[Folders include court filings, copies of the TDC
affirmative action plan, revised in 1975 and 1978, historical data
on the Lamar and Guajardo cases, lists from the TDC inmate job management
system, and a copy of the 63-month progress report of the TDC
affirmative action plan.]

[Folder includes a copy of an article titled
The murder conspiracy of prison officials: Forced
cell-integration of white, black and brown militant prisoners of TDC,
Michael Unit; court filings; a historical overview
of in-cell integration; an overview of Lamar requirements as of 1989; and TDC administrative
directives pertaining to inmate housing and job assignment criteria
and procedures.]

[Folders include biographical sketches and
employment backgrounds for key TDCJ staff members as well as for
Jerry J. Enomoto, expert for the U.S. Department of Justice;
administrative and legal correspondence; court filings; supplemental
responses to the third set of interrogatories and requests for
production of documents; handwritten notes; and level of compliance
statistics.]

This series documents the progress of the class action suit, Guadalupe Guajardo Jr. et al. v. W.J. Estelle Jr. et
al., filed by inmates of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(formerly known as the Texas Department of Corrections, TDC) against the
agency in 1971 to challenge the constitutionality of a number of rules and
practices related to inmate correspondence and mail. A number of pleadings
were filed by Guadalupe Guajardo, et al., each naming the director of the
prison as the first defendant, thus the style changes from Guajardo v. Estelle (the director at the time of
the original suit) to, for instance, Guajardo v.
Collins, changing when the director of the prison system changed.
The records date 1976-1983, 1987-1994, bulk 1980-1983.

Materials found within these files include court filings in English and
Spanish, legal and administrative correspondence, a copy of the special
insert to The Echo, a TDCJ newspaper for
inmates, dated February 1983, that contained a notice and correspondence
rules, parole and staff member addresses, survey questions regarding
correspondence and publications allowed to inmates in punitive segregation
sent to the Departments of Correction of other U.S. states and their
compiled responses, materials drawing comparisons with similar cases in
different states, copies of reports and inter-office communications by TDC
staff relating to visitations by the court-appointed special master,
monitors or investigators, copies of requests for administrative remedy
filed by inmates, inmate personal property receipts, inmate disciplinary and
offense reports, disciplinary committee findings, violation notices,
correspondence between inmates and TDC prison unit staff members, a copy of
the final judgment in the Ruiz case, excerpts
from the Federal Supplement and Federal Reporter, copies of newsletters, TDC
employee turnover by selected classifications and class series, a TDC
administrative bulletin regarding single-celling of assaultive / vulnerable
inmates, and handwritten notes. Bulk of the material consists of court
filings and administrative and legal correspondence. Correspondents include
the attorney general and assistant attorney generals of Texas, executive
directors, general counsel and other staff members of TDC, staff members of
the Department of Corrections in other states, prison wardens, inmates, and
the court-appointed special master, monitors or investigators.

Guajardo Case History

On May 21, 1971, Guadalupe Guajardo, Jr., an inmate, filed a class action
suit on behalf of all TDC inmates to challenge the constitutionality of TDC
rules and practices related to inmate correspondence and mail.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas found a number of
the rules unconstitutional, and ordered injunctive relief. On appeal, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, on
grounds that the state-wide TDC rules and regulations could only be enjoined
by a three-judge court. The parties then began lengthy settlement
negotiations, which were preliminarily approved by the district court on
June 9, 1976. The plaintiffs, however, determined that even the new rules in
the agreement did not meet constitutional requirements and moved to vacate
the settlement. The district court severed the issues still in dispute for
trial, and conditionally approved the rules as further modified. At trial,
the district court again found several of the rules unconstitutional. TDC
appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that no
three-judge court or jury trial were required.

In the category of general correspondence, the court ruled that requiring an
inmate to receive prior approval from TDC before corresponding by mail with
an individual not in prison is unconstitutional; numerical restrictions on
outgoing and incoming mail is unconstitutional; censorship of mail that
violates prison rules or involves a graphic presentation of sexual behavior
that violated the law is constitutional; and censorship in the form of
delaying the delivery of "disturbing" mail
to the inmate until a chaplain or psychologist could review it is
unconstitutional.

In the category of mail to attorneys, courts, or government agencies, the
court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a prison official to open
outgoing mail; and incoming mail may be inspected, but only for contraband
and in the presence of the prisoner.

The records arrived at the State Archives in no apparent order. Most of the
files within the boxes have been maintained as received from the agency and
are not in chronological order. In most instances, file names have been
directly noted from the originals. However in some cases, files were not
originally assigned descriptive names. On those occasions, the records were
reviewed by an archivist and a label was assigned based on implied
intellectual grouping. Some minor rearrangement was done by staff to correct
obvious misfiles.

These records were transferred to the Archives and Information Services
Division of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission by the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice on September 16, 2003.

Restrictions on Access

Because of the possibility that portions of these records fall under Public
Information Act exceptions including, but not limited to: social security
numbers (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.117 for government
employees, 552.147 for any living person); medical information (V.T.C.A.,
Government Code, Section 552.101 (information confidential by law, Texas
Occupations Code, Section 159.002(b)); information about inmates created by
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section
552.134 (information confidential by law, Texas Government Code, Section
508.313)); attorney-client privilege, agency memoranda or attorney work
product (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.107 or 111); and account
numbers, access device numbers (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.136);
an archivist must review these records before they can be accessed for
research. The records may be requested for research under the provisions of
the Public Information Act (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 552). The
researcher may request an interview with an archivist or submit a request by
mail (Texas State Library and Archives Commission, P. O. Box 12927, Austin,
TX 78711), fax (512-463-5436), email (Dir_Lib@tsl.texas.gov), or see our web
page (http://www.tsl.texas.gov/agency/customer/pia.html). Include
enough description and detail about the information requested to enable the
archivist to accurately identify and locate the information. If our review
reveals information that may be excepted by the Public Information Act, we
are obligated to seek an open records decision from the Attorney General on
whether the records can be released. The Public Information Act allows the
Archives ten working days after receiving a request to make this
determination. The Attorney General has 45 working days to render a
decision. Alternately, the Archives can inform you of the nature of the
potentially excepted information and if you agree, that information can be
redacted or removed and you can access the remainder of the records.

All of the litigation case files are restricted and must be reviewed by an
archivist before they can be accessed for research. Most of the possible
exceptions are not noted in the folder inventory because they apply to the
majority of the folders; only exceptions that are less obvious are so
marked.

Materials do not circulate, but may be used in the State Archives search
room. Materials will be retrieved from and returned to storage areas by
staff members.

Restrictions on Use

Most records created by Texas state agencies are not copyrighted. State
records also include materials received by, not created by, state agencies.
Copyright remains with the creator. The researcher is responsible for
complying with U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S.C.).

Technical Requirements

None.

Processing Information

Processed by Laura K. Saegert, September 2003, December 2008

Additional processing and finding aid by Aditi Worcester, January 2014

[Folders include court filings in English and
Spanish; administrative correspondence; a copy of the special insert
to The Echo, containing notice and
correspondence rules, dated February 1983; names and addresses of
individuals / groups corresponding with the consultant; parole
addresses; survey questions regarding correspondence allowed to
inmates in punitive segregation and publications containing
materials deemed as dangerous to security sent to the Department of
Corrections of other U.S. states and their compiled responses;
copies of court filings in the case of Stewart v. Rhodes; a case in Ohio where inmates alleged violations of
their First Amendment rights by the Department of Corrections'
refusal to subscribe to specific publications; and handwritten
notes.]

[Folders include court filings; administrative
correspondence and records; correspondence between TDC staff and
members of the General Counsel and representatives of publications
not permitted in prison units including the Pipelines newsletter and Lineage and Other Stories book; photocopies of Pipelines, The Battle
Blotter, The Legal Eagle, and Thunderbird newsletters; excerpts from the Federal Supplement and Federal Reporter;
agency statistics; and photocopies of news articles pertaining to
TDC and its inmates.]

[Folder includes correspondence between TDCJ
General Counsel and Texas State Senator Frank Tejeda regarding
inmate correspondence and TDC disciplinary rules; drafts of bills;
photocopies of news articles; agency statistics pertaining to the
impact of the 70th legislature on time-earning categories; and a
copy of the TDC correspondence rules, effective July 14, 1983, in
English and Spanish.]

[Folders include records relating to the
specifications for and selection of an independent consultant to
assist TDC in studying the agency's existing practices and
procedures regarding inmate mail flow; a copy of the proposed
monitoring schedule for inmate correspondence; inter-office
communications; a biographical and professional overview of Dr.
Sherman R. Day, TDC consultant; training modules and rules for TDC
staff pertaining to incoming and outgoing general correspondence;
and handwritten notes.]

[Folders include inter-office communications
relating to special master and court monitor visits to TDC units as
well as documents requested in the Ruiz case such as daily inmate menus; change sheets; an inventory of law
library books in the writ rooms of individual prison units; a copy
of the rules and regulations of the TDC diagnostic center; inmate
disciplinary and incident reports; injury reports; and medical
records; correspondence between inmates and prison wardens and other
TDC staff; personal property receipts; requests for administrative
remedy by inmates; and handwritten notes.]

[Folders include court filings in English and
Spanish; final versions and drafts of TDC correspondence rules in
Spanish and English; newspaper clippings; excerpts from the
Federal Reporter 2nd Series; inter-office
communications; printed copies of Errata providing changes to the special edition of
The Echo on inmate correspondence rules;
handwritten notes; administrative and legal correspondence; uniform
inmate access to courts; counsel and public officials rules; and a
discovery deposition.]

This series documents the progress of the litigation case filed by the state
of Texas and TDCJ against VitaPro Foods, Inc., a private Canadian company
that produces and markets a soy-based meat substitute under the trade name
VitaPro. The records date 1983-2000, bulk 1994-1996.

This case concerns the authority of TDCJ to enter into two contracts with
VitaPro, a Canadian company that manufactures a soy-based meat substitute
called VitaPro, which is a textured vegetable protein (TVP). In January
1994, Yank Barry, VitaPro's President and CEO, met TDCJ officials at the
American Correctional Association Food Show and Service Show in Orlando,
Florida. Subsequently James Collins, TDCJ's Executive Director, directed the
Director of Food Services to purchase VitaPro for testing purposes in
mid-1994. A bid specification was prepared and sent to the General Services
Commission (GSC). Through the GSC, TDCJ acquired some VitaPro in July 1994.
Following the tests, Yank Barry, president and CEO of VitaPro Foods, met
with TDCJ and Texas Correctional Industries (TCI) officials to discuss
having TCI repackage and market VitaPro to other state agencies and
out-of-state prison systems. VitaPro Foods and TCI talked about forming a
distributorship arrangement whereby TCI would purchase VitaPro in bulk at a
reduced cost, repackage the product using inmate labor, and resell it at a
higher price.

After several months of discussions with VitaPro Foods, TCI officials
developed an action plan that called for TCI to repackage and resell VitaPro
both to Food Services for inmate consumption and to tax-supported entities
in other states. As part of this plan, TCI developed a purchase order for
VitaPro, designed an FDA-compliant label for the repackaged VitaPro,
procured a repackaging license from the Texas Department of Health, and
conducted research to confirm TCI's belief that it had statutory authority
to directly purchase VitaPro. The plan also expressed the desire for TCI to
eventually produce VitaPro as one of its prison-industries programs.

Between July 1994 and September 1995, five purchase orders were issued to
VitaPro Foods. These purchase orders also served as the contracts between
the parties. The first purchase, which was made through the GSC for TDCJ's
testing purposes, was never in dispute. TDCJ subsequently issued four
purchase orders, without going through the GSC, under the purported
authority of the Direct Purchasing Statute. This statute provided an
exception to the GSC bidding requirements and allowed TDCJ to buy certain
goods directly from third parties. TDCJ issued the first disputed purchase
order on November 7, 1994, accompanied by a formal Decision Memorandum. The
first purchase order obligated TDCJ to purchase a minimum of 17 metric tons
of VitaPro per month for a term ending August 31, 1995, with the option to
renew the contract for four additional one-year terms. In July 1995, TDCJ
issued the second purchase order. This purchase order had a five-year term
and obligated TDCJ to purchase at least 39 metric tons of VitaPro per month.
The estimated cost of the VitaPro under both purchase orders was over $40
million.

Both disputed purchase orders stated that the purchase is exempted from
review and approval by the GSC as provided in the Direct Purchasing Statute.
Neither purchase order specifically referred to the distributorship plan,
but both contained an allusive reference to the plan by requiring VitaPro
Foods to "provide [TCI] technical assistance in
areas such as product packaging and inventory control." All
shipments of VitaPro were delivered directly to TCI, who repackaged the
product using inmate labor. TCI also began marketing VitaPro. A VitaPro
Marketing and Training Team was formed, and, during the first half of 1995,
sales and demonstration visits were made to correctional facilities and
other state facilities in California, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Texas. Marketing materials were sent to officials in 22
other states.

These efforts met with limited success. TCI completed only five sales to
other entities, including New York, Iowa, Missouri, Nacogdoches County,
Texas, and McLennan County, Texas. Moreover, the VitaPro sold to New York
and Iowa was shipped directly from VitaPro Foods in Canada because of lower
shipping costs, which yielded TCI a sales commission without TCI ever
handling the VitaPro. As a result, almost all of the VitaPro actually sent
to TCI was repackaged and then shipped to Food Services. In addition to
suffering from a lack of outside interest, VitaPro did not fare well with
the TDCJ staff or inmates.

In its motion for summary judgment, TDCJ presented evidence that the frequent
serving of VitaPro demoralized the staff and inmates and led to adverse
health effects, including rampant flatulence. Because of frequent
complaints, TDCJ stopped accepting shipments of VitaPro in February 1996 and
phased out serving it to the inmates and staff from February to May 1996.
The Texas Supreme Court invalidated TDCJ’s VitaPro contract in 1999. Both
Collins and Vitapro president Yank Barry were convicted in August 2001 on
federal bribery charges. However, their convictions were reversed by the
district court in 2005, and they were acquitted in a 2008 retrial.

The records arrived at the State Archives in no apparent order. Most of the
files within the boxes have been maintained as received from the agency and
are not in chronological order. Some minor rearrangement was done by staff
to correct obvious misfiles.

Most of the original file names appear to have been derived from the name of
the person whose office the records originated in and do not necessarily
provide much information about the contents. A file titled Mark Tissue for instance, would reflect the
records of Mr. Tissue, plant manager, Wynne records conversion unit. As a
result, multiple folders can have the same title. In some cases, the folders
are differentiated numerically i.e. Mark Tissue - I,
II , III and so on. In other cases, there may be no numerical
differentiator, and the only difference between files of the same name may
be the span of years covered. To offer more clarity, an overview of the
contents of such files has been provided.

These records were transferred to the Archives and Information Services
Division of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission by the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice on March 6, 2007.

Restrictions on Access

Because of the possibility that portions of these records fall under Public
Information Act exceptions including, but not limited to: social security
numbers (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.117 for government
employees, 552.147 for any living person); information about inmates created
by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (V.T.C.A., Government Code,
Section 552.134 (information confidential by law, Texas Government Code,
Section 508.313)); attorney-client privilege, agency memoranda or attorney
work product (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.107 or 111); and
account numbers, access device numbers (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section
552.136); an archivist must review these records before they can be accessed
for research. The records may be requested for research under the provisions
of the Public Information Act (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 552). The
researcher may request an interview with an archivist or submit a request by
mail (Texas State Library and Archives Commission, P. O. Box 12927, Austin,
TX 78711), fax (512-463-5436), email (Dir_Lib@tsl.texas.gov), or see our web
page (http://www.tsl.texas.gov/agency/customer/pia.html). Include
enough description and detail about the information requested to enable the
archivist to accurately identify and locate the information. If our review
reveals information that may be excepted by the Public Information Act, we
are obligated to seek an open records decision from the Attorney General on
whether the records can be released. The Public Information Act allows the
Archives ten working days after receiving a request to make this
determination. The Attorney General has 45 working days to render a
decision. Alternately, the Archives can inform you of the nature of the
potentially excepted information and if you agree, that information can be
redacted or removed and you can access the remainder of the records.

All of the litigation case files are restricted and must be reviewed by an
archivist before they can be accessed for research. Most of the possible
exceptions are not noted in the folder inventory because they apply to the
majority of the folders; only exceptions that are less obvious are so
marked. Such folders have been identified in the inventory.

Materials do not circulate, but may be used in the State Archives search
room. Materials will be retrieved from and returned to storage areas by
staff members.

Restrictions on Use

Most records created by Texas state agencies are not copyrighted. State
records also include materials received by, not created by, state agencies.
Copyright remains with the creator. The researcher is responsible for
complying with U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S.C.).

Technical Requirements

Please contact the Archives' Preservation Officer for appropriate hardware /
software to view contents of the VHS video cassette tapes or listen to the
audio tapes.

Processing Information

Processed by Laura K. Saegert, September 2003, December 2008

Additional processing and finding aid by Aditi Worcester, January 2014

[Folders include deposition notices, transcripts of
the videotaped deposition of Yank Barry, Allan Polunsky, and
exhibits to the videotaped oral deposition of Allan
Polunsky.]

Box

2007/107-2

TDCJ v. VitaPro: Discovery,
1996[3 folders]

[Folders include copies of court
filings.]

TDCJ press releases, media coverage,
1995-1996[3 folders]

[Folders include copies of press releases issued by
TDCJ as well as news articles. The folders also include a small
amount of unrelated documents such as inter-office communications
related to costs and production data for substituting VitaPro
products for certain meat products, administrative correspondence,
an executive summary of VitaPro sack weights, inter-office
communications on menu changes, and handwritten notes.]

[Folders include a bid submitted by TDCJ for
selling VitaPro to the State of Iowa medical classification center,
purchase orders, administrative documents, investigation by the
internal affairs division of TDCJ into the classification and
movement of certain inmates, drafts of press releases, court
filings, and legal and administrative correspondence.]

[Folder includes administrative records,
inter-office correspondence regarding the arrest of Patrick Harold
Graham, and a letter from Wayne Scott, TDCJ executive director to
board members informing them of a review of agency purchasing
procedures in the wake of the VitaPro investigation.]

Binders at C. Reynolds, undated

Belva Boyd, 1995-1996

[Folder includes inter-office communications to the
Gatesville unit instructing staff to not add meat to VitaPro
recipes, as well as requests for VitaPro inventories at various
prison units.]

[Folder includes usage estimates and cost
comparisons for VitaPro in prison units.]

Standlee, David: Executive services,
1995-1996

[Folder includes department and division
organization charts, as well as the mission, philosophy, goals and
strategic plan for TDCJ.]

Mosley, Artis: Supplemental,
1996

[Folder includes a document listing the inventory
and dates that VitaPro products were received.]

Scott, Wayne: Submission, 1995

[Folder includes drafts of press releases
pertaining to the VitaPro investigation, correspondence from the
Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers to the governor of Texas
regarding their concerns about meat sales and the use of the VitaPro
protein supplement, and administrative records.]

Box

2007/107-4

TBCJ minutes, 1995[4 folders]

[Folders include minutes of the Texas Board of
Criminal Justice meeting number 45.]

TBCJ minutes, 1994[4 folders]

[Folders include minutes of the Texas Board of
Criminal Justice meeting number 38.]

TDCJ comprehensive training plan,
1996

TDCJ food service manual, 1994[3 folders]

VitaPro dox file, 1994-1996[4 folders]

[Folders include copies of news articles, TDCJ
department and division organization charts, report regarding the
Nacogdoches county jail and VitaPro demonstration, master unit list
of all unit administration, correspondence, a review of management
controls at TDCJ, copies of invoices, shipping orders and payments
made, and copies of VitaPro informational literature.]

[Folders include VitaPro status reports, cost
analysis, and purchase summaries, administrative records and
correspondence, schedules for VitaPro demonstrations at the
Department of Corrections of other U.S. states, and bills and
invoices.]

Miller, Debbie, 1994-1995[5 folders]

[Folders include invitations to bid and VitaPro
quotes provided to the Department of Corrections of other U.S.
states, nutritional facts and directions for preparation of VitaPro
products, correspondence between VitaPro representatives and staff
at correctional facilities and state government agencies across the
U.S., VitaPro cost comparisons, a draft of the services agreement
between the Texas Correctional Industries (TCI) and agents
associated with TCI to promote VitaPro products to their customer
base, a copy of informational material about the joint venture
between VitaPro and TCI to feed corrections and institutions,
administrative records, a draft of plans for incorporation of
vegetable protein supplements into meals served by TDCJ, a policy
review packet of the Special Committee on Board Policies of the
Texas Board of Criminal Justice, and internal memorandum and board
policies.]

[Folders include materials regarding VitaPro
training; correspondence with the Texas and Southwestern Cattle
Raisers Association; a booklet from the agriculture division of
TDCJ; informational literature about VitaPro; administrative
records; a copy of a flyer produced anonymously by inmates
attempting to contact free world sources to raise opposition to
TDCJ's use of VitaPro; TDCJ plans for incorporation of vegetable
protein supplements into meals served by the agency; and
recipes.]

[Folders primarily include correspondence between
TDCJ and prison inmates (and in one instance, a state senator)
regarding problems with VitaPro, as well as a small portion of
administrative records, recipes, and copies of news
articles.]

Bill Thornton (industry) - I,
1995-1996[3 folders]

[Folders include informational literature about
VitaPro, inter-office communications, administrative records and
correspondence, and a certificate of Halal purity for
VitaPro.]

[Folders include a recommendation regarding the
discontinuation of the purchase of VitaPro products for TDCJ,
administrative records, administrative and legal correspondence, a
supplement offense report for commercial bribery / organized crime,
and board policy documents.]

TDCJ v. VitaPro: News clippings,
1995-1996[6 folders]

VitaPro news clippings, volume 2,
1996[5 folders]

Box

2007/107-9

VitaPro - Master list of TDCJ witnesses,
1996

[Folder originally also included a 3.5 inch floppy
disk. Information on the disk was accessed by State Archives staff
in January 2014 and a printout of the contents - Master List - was
subsequently included in the folder.]

[Folder originally comprised a 3.5 inch floppy
disk. Information on the disk was accessed by State Archives staff
in January 2014 and a printout of the contents - transcript of the
videotaped oral deposition of Artis B. Mosley, Jr. - was
subsequently included in the folder.]

Wayne Scott, file name: WS050996, ASCII, May 9,
1996

[Folder originally comprised a 3.5 inch floppy
disk. Information on the disk was accessed by State Archives staff
in January 2014 and a printout of the contents - transcript of the
videotaped oral deposition of Wayne Scott - was subsequently
included in the folder.]

Glen Castlebury, file name: GC051096, ASCII, May 10,
1996

[Folder originally comprised a 3.5 inch floppy
disk. Information on the disk was accessed by State Archives staff
in January 2014 and a printout of the contents - transcript of the
videotaped oral deposition of Glen Castlebury - was subsequently
included in the folder.]

[Folders include reply to the respondent VitaPro
Foods, Inc's response to petition for review, brief of petitioner,
and response to petition for review.]

VitaPro - Appellants' brief and FN transcripts - I,
1997[3 folders]

[Folders include a copy of the brief of
appellant.]

VitaPro - Appellants' brief and FN transcripts - II,
1997[4 folders]

[Folders include a copy of the VitaPro and Texas
Correctional Industries (TCI) joint venture to feed corrections and
institutions.]

VitaPro - Appellants' brief and FN transcripts - III,
1997[3 folders]

[Folders include photocopies of news articles, a
draft of the services agreement between TCI and agents associated
with it, depositions, VitaPro cost analysis, agency plan for the
phase-out of VitaPro and phase-in of expanded agency meat
production, and purchase orders.]

Box

2007/107-11

Bill Thornton (Industry) - II,
1995-1996[3 folders]

[Folders include administrative records;
invitations to bid and price quotes to the correctional enterprises
of other U.S. states; membership list of the interagency council on
nutrition; sales invoices; VitaPro costings for various recipes; a
copy of the VitaPro and Texas Correctional Industries (TCI) joint
venture to feed corrections and institutions; inter-office
communication regarding VitaPro usage; cost and prospects; and a
TDCJ action plan for VitaPro.]

[Folders include inter-office communications
regarding VitaPro usage and demonstrations, VitaPro status reports,
a copy of VitaPro marketing strategies, administrative
correspondence, invitations to bid, TDCJ action plan, VitaPro
recipes and costings, a certificate of analysis and nutrition facts
on VitaPro by Nutrition International, a manufacturer's certificate
to cover exports of food or drug products, TDCJ food service
department menu planning guide, a copy of the Texas Department of
Health rules for licensure of manufacturers of food and wholesale
distributors of food, and a copy of a guide to self-inspection for
the smaller food processor and warehouse by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.]

[Folders include copies of the joint venture to
feed corrections and institutions by VitaPro and Texas Correctional
Industries, a report in French, administrative correspondence and
records, executive and administrative directives, TDCJ board policy
documents, internal memorandum, and recipes.]

VitaPro documents file #70 to #129,
1993-1996[3 folders]

[Folders include recipes, certificates of analysis
from Nutrition International, invoices, administrative records, a
client list for VitaPro, purchase orders, correspondence regarding
efforts made by TDCJ to address the Texas and Southwestern Cattle
Raisers concerns about calf sales, beef purchases and use of
VitaPro, and inter-office communications regarding the VitaPro
training schedule etc.]

Box

2007/107-13

VitaPro documents file #130 to #181,
1995-1996[4 folders]

[Folders include plans for incorporation of
vegetarian protein supplements into meals served by TDCJ, invoices,
correspondence between VitaPro and TDCJ, as well as between VitaPro
and external agencies, internal memoranda, copies of news articles,
excerpts from the Code of Federal Regulations, administrative
records, recipes, a report from Texas Performance Review titled
Behind the Walls: The Price and Performance of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, and a VitaPro
press conference report.]

VitaPro documents file #182 to #234,
1995-1996[3 folders]

[Folders include copies of news articles and a
draft of the statement of Andy Collins.]

VitaPro documents file #235 to #289,
1995-1996[3 folders]

[Folders include copies of news articles, executive
directives, proposal for a new TDCJ administrative rule regarding
the sale and disposal of surplus agricultural goods, purchase
orders, and administrative records.]

VitaPro documents file #290 to #358, 1985-1987,
1994-1996[4 folders]

[Folders include copies of news articles, the
subject index of the departmental policy and operational manual from
1994 through 1996, administrative directives, board policy
documents, purchase orders and invoices.]

[Folders include an overview of Texas Correctional
Industries (TCI); minutes from the industry advisory committee
meeting of March 1996 and the food service directors quarterly
meeting of April 1995; purchase orders; copies of a services
agreement between TDCJ and agents associated with TCI; and
administrative records.]

[Folder includes inter-office communications
regarding a request for special audit of VitaPro and preliminary
findings of the fact that Yank Barry, President and CEO of VitaPro,
may be using an alias name, in addition to legal
correspondence.]

[Folder includes administrative correspondence;
correspondence with the families of inmates; inter-office
communication regarding witness statements; copies of court filings
and news articles; and report of an investigation into allegations
that files pertaining to official investigations were deliberately
destroyed.]

Materials found within these files include court filings and other documents,
handwritten notes, scaled-down blueprints of living and working areas in
different prison units, agency statistics, inter-office communications,
correspondence, and administrative records. These case files represent a
smaller portion of this collection and include cases that are not
comprehensively documented. In some instances, a case file may include a
single document. Other case files may consist of multiple folders.

Lonnie Clements Encalade v. Brad Livingston Case History

TDC inmate Lonnie Clements Encalade filed a civil rights complaint in
November 2010 against Brad Livingston, Director of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ), and F.N.U. Wheeler, Warden of the TDCJ Robertson
Unit alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
safety after he was threatened by another inmate and to his health when he
was incarcerated for 72 hours in a non-air conditioned prehearing detention
cell for safekeeping. The plaintiff’s objections were eventually overruled
and the case was dismissed.

(Sources include: the records themselves.)

Robert Sillings v. Oliver Bell Case History

This case concerns the plaintiff's application for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis in 2012. The Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) requires prisoners seeking to bring civil actions
to pay an initial partial filing fee. The PLRA further requires prisoners
thereafter to pay the balance of the full filing fee ($350).

(Sources include: the records themselves.)

K.K. Coble v. TDC Case History

In 1977, two citizens of the state of Texas filed a class action lawsuit
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the Texas Department
of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had violated their rights
by discriminating against them on account of their sex when they applied for
employment. On December 20, 1982, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas held that TDC’s policy of not hiring women to perform any
correctional officer functions at male prison units violated Title VII, but
the court further held that the TDC’s policy of not utilizing female
correctional officers in "contact positions"
in male prisons did not violate Title VII. The court ordered the defendants
to prepare a plan whereby female correctional officers would be routinely
employed and utilized at the male prison units in those positions that would
protect the privacy interests of inmates.

This lawsuit arose from a dispute regarding the adequacy of Church of Christ
religious services afforded to Texas prisoners. A class of disaffected
inmates filed a civil rights suit alleging that the religious accommodations
policy of TDCJ violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, William R.
Freeman, a member of the class, alleged that he was transferred to another
unit in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of TDCJ and the inmates
appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the prison policy under
which inmates belonging to a certain church could attend weekly services
with a "Christian/non-Roman Catholic"
sub-group did not violate the inmates' free exercise rights. According to
the court, the policy that identified "five major
faith sub-groups" was neutral, was rationally related to staff,
space and financial concerns, was reasonable, and the inmates had
alternative means of exercising their religions such as attending
supplemental services conducted by volunteers from their faith. The court
also held that the policy did not violate the inmates' equal protection
rights.

(Sources include: Opinion of the United States District Court, Northern
District of Texas, Amarillo Division, March 31, 2003.)

Guillermo Gomez et al. v. George Waldron et al. Case History

On August 26, 1985, plaintiff Guillermo Gomez filed a complaint against TDC,
which subsequently became a class action suit consisting of all monolingual
Spanish-speaking inmates of TDC. The complaint alleged that the failure of
TDC to provide legal materials in Spanish or assistance to monolingual
Spanish-speaking inmates in using the prison law libraries, to provide
interpreters to monolingual Spanish-speaking inmates in the inmate
disciplinary process, and to process inmate grievance forms in Spanish or to
provide monolingual Spanish-speaking inmates with assistance in submitting
those forms in English violates the plaintiff’s rights to access the courts,
to due process of law, to petition the government for redress, and to
privileges and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. On December
23, 1987, information came to the attention of the court that the plaintiff
Gomez may not adequately represent the interests of the proposed class. The
court ordered that his motion for class certification be held in abeyance
pending resolution of the class representation matter, and further ordered
the parties to prepare a notice to potential class members. In 1988, the
court ordered the proceedings stayed in response to a motion to stay
proceedings filed by both parties to allow adequate time to discuss
settlement. On February 9, 1989, the cause of action entitled Gomez v. Waldron was consolidated with the civil
action suit of David Ruiz et al. v. James A. Lynaugh
et al.

In 1975, Lawrence Alberti and fellow inmates filed a class action suit on
behalf of past, present, and future inmates of Harris County jails against
the Harris County Commissioners Court and the Harris County Sheriff's
Department alleging that the jails' conditions violated numerous
constitutional and statutory provisions. Subsequently the governor of the
state of Texas, director of TDC and members of the Texas Board of
Corrections (the governing body of TDC), were made third-party defendants in
the case to the third-party complaint therein of the Alberti defendants, the
sheriff, county judge, and county commissioners of Harris County, Texas, who
alleged that the third-party defendants are responsible for overcrowding in
the Harris County jail because of TDC's refusal to accept sufficient numbers
of convicted felons confined in the Harris County jail and ready for
transfer to TDC.

The original district judge conducted extensive hearings and concluded that
conditions in the jails were "inhumane." The
plaintiffs and the county then entered into a consent decree on February 4,
1975. The decree called for renovations of existing facilities, the
development of a new central jail, and improvements in staff and security.
The district court retained jurisdiction to issue further interim orders,
and shortly thereafter, on December 16, 1975, the court issued a lengthy
opinion setting forth broad guidelines for the streamlining of the criminal
justice system, the implementation of an effective pre-trial release
program, and the improvement of living conditions within the jails.

The county filed a motion for final judgment and permanent injunction on
February 20, 1987. Shortly thereafter, on April 28, 1987, the Alberti court
appointed three monitors - a special master, a medical monitor-assessor, and
a jail monitor-assessor - to periodically inspect the jails and to assess
their conditions, to make findings on the county's compliance with its
orders, and to determine the maximum capacities of the jails. The monitors
issued their first report on October 7, 1987. Of the 18 conditions surveyed,
the monitors found full compliance as to nine, partial compliance as to
seven, and non-compliance only as to two, medical and dental care and drug
and alcohol treatment. The monitors also found that, as of June 1, 1987, the
county's jails were only five percent over their design capacity. However,
in light of the inordinate delay in achieving substantial compliance, the
monitors recommended continued supervision by the Alberti court.

Eroy Edward Brown, an African American inmate with two prior terms in the
Texas Department of Corrections, entered Ellis prison in 1977 after being
convicted as an accomplice to the armed robbery of a Fort Worth motel. In
April 1981, he was charged with the murders of Ellis unit warden Wallace
Pack and prison farm manager Billy Moore. Brown did not deny killing Pack
and Moore and claimed that he had acted in self-defense. After three trials
(the first ending in a mistrial when a single juror held out for
conviction), Brown was acquitted - 35 of the 36 jurors who heard the
testimony concluded he was not guilty of murder. Brown was freed, but in
less than six months after his release, he returned to prison as an
accessory to a $12 robbery. He was sentenced to 90 years as a "habitual criminal." He was granted parole in
May 2012. Materials found within these files include copies of court
filings, inter-office communications, depositions, handwritten notes,
blueprints of prison units, and agency statistics.

The records arrived at the State Archives in no apparent order. Most of the
files within the boxes have been maintained as received from the agency and
are not in chronological order. Some minor rearrangement was done by staff
to correct obvious misfiles. In addition, several inches of these files were
found mixed in with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
General Counsel's Office Ruiz litigation case files. Those
files were removed and added to this collection.

These records were transferred to the Archives and Information Services
Division of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission by the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice on September 16, 2003.

Restrictions on Access

Because of the possibility that portions of these records fall under Public
Information Act exceptions including, but not limited to: social security
numbers (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.117 for government
employees, 552.147 for any living person); information about inmates created
by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (V.T.C.A., Government Code,
Section 552.134 (information confidential by law, Texas Government Code,
Section 508.313)); attorney-client privilege, agency memoranda or attorney
work product (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.107 or 111); and
account numbers, access device numbers (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section
552.136); an archivist must review these records before they can be accessed
for research. The records may be requested for research under the provisions
of the Public Information Act (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 552). The
researcher may request an interview with an archivist or submit a request by
mail (Texas State Library and Archives Commission, P. O. Box 12927, Austin,
TX 78711), fax (512-463-5436), email (Dir_Lib@tsl.texas.gov), or see our web
page (http://www.tsl.texas.gov/agency/customer/pia.html). Include
enough description and detail about the information requested to enable the
archivist to accurately identify and locate the information. If our review
reveals information that may be excepted by the Public Information Act, we
are obligated to seek an open records decision from the Attorney General on
whether the records can be released. The Public Information Act allows the
Archives ten working days after receiving a request to make this
determination. The Attorney General has 45 working days to render a
decision. Alternately, the Archives can inform you of the nature of the
potentially excepted information and if you agree, that information can be
redacted or removed and you can access the remainder of the records.

All of the litigation case files are restricted and must be reviewed by an
archivist before they can be accessed for research. Most of the possible
exceptions are not noted in the folder inventory because they apply to the
majority of the folders; only exceptions that are less obvious are so
marked.

Materials do not circulate, but may be used in the State Archives search
room. Materials will be retrieved from and returned to storage areas by
staff members.

Restrictions on Use

Most records created by Texas state agencies are not copyrighted. State
records also include materials received by, not created by, state agencies.
Copyright remains with the creator. The researcher is responsible for
complying with U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S.C.).

Technical Requirements

None.

Processing Information

Processed by Laura K. Saegert, September 2003, December 2008

Additional processing and finding aid by Aditi Worcester, January 2014

Box

2004/016-128

Order implementing stipulation providing for witness protection,
State v. Brown, April 1, 1982

State v. Brown court filings and
documents, 1982,
undated

[Folder includes an inter-office communication
regarding subpoena duces tecum, a copy of a request for
administrative remedy files by a TDC inmate, the resume and
deposition of Randolph T. McVey, chief of the litigation support
division of TDC in 1981, handwritten notes, and a printed document
titled Suggestions to Witnesses.]